• Locked Locked
  • Replies 4 replies
  • Subscribers 119 subscribers
  • Views 6476 views
  • Users 0 members are here
2025 survey

We are running a survey to help us improve the experience for all of our members. If you see the survey appear, please take the time to tell us about your experience if you can.

Options
Related
How was your experience today?
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

[Trustzone] interrupt level fast world switch(NWD->SWD) solution?

ray mao
Note: This was originally posted on 11th October 2012 at http://forums.arm.com

Dear ARM Engineer,

I have a question about interrupt level fast word switch for trustzone enabled ecosystem.
For scenario - 1 core is running in one World, interrupt of the other World happen. How to switch the core to the other world quickly.

Solution-1
In the whitepaper prd29-genc-009492c_trustzone_security_whitepaper.pdf
one solution is already mentioned. - monitor route slolution.
but this solution need carefully deal with monitor, NWD OS, SWD OS interrupt related code.

Solution-2
I was checking another solution which one World OS actively do swtich directly while the other world interrupt happen.
From ARM GIC Spec, spurious interrupt ID 1022 & 1023 seems to be possible as the flag.
(Suppose NWD only use IRQ, SWD only use FIQ)
After test,
1022 can help SWD->NWD  for case cpu core in SWD and IRQ happened.
1023 can not help NWD->SWD for case cpu core in NWD and FIQ happened. (As 1023 will also happen in other case)

So is there any extra flag/way can help Solution-2 do NWD->SWD.
Or say Besides Monitro solution, is there any other way can help interrupt level fast word switch NWD->SWD while  FIQ happen.

Thanks!
Parents
  • Note: This was originally posted on 12th October 2012 at http://forums.arm.com

    Thanks for reply, guys

    We all agree monitor solution is better(best) solution to this case.
    monitor solution has better performance but inflexible.

    I mean, for one world OS, giveup CPU stradegy can be changeable while the other world interrupt* happen.
    e.g.
    1.every interrupt* happen do world switch
    2.every N(2,3) interrupt* happen do world switch
    3.only NOT in critical area code(hope to be finished before switch), interrupt* happen do world switch

Reply
  • Note: This was originally posted on 12th October 2012 at http://forums.arm.com

    Thanks for reply, guys

    We all agree monitor solution is better(best) solution to this case.
    monitor solution has better performance but inflexible.

    I mean, for one world OS, giveup CPU stradegy can be changeable while the other world interrupt* happen.
    e.g.
    1.every interrupt* happen do world switch
    2.every N(2,3) interrupt* happen do world switch
    3.only NOT in critical area code(hope to be finished before switch), interrupt* happen do world switch

Children
No data